WHY is it that an AFL footballer, blessed with an abundance of talent and support, can succumb to drugs three times before the competition of which he is part takes action, but the rest of the community is not afforded the same three-strike policy?
And is the controversial three-strike policy actually in the player’s best interests, or should more be done upfront to stop AFL players sinking further into the world of drugs?
These are questions the AFL and its member clubs must face in the wake of the first ever instance of a player breaching the three-strike policy.
The AFL rules mean that a player’s identity only becomes public after his third strike.
The player receives counselling after the first strike and his club medical officer is told of a second offence, if one occurs.
The offending player receives a $5000 suspended fine for a first strike and a six-game ban, also suspended, for a second strike, and so these punishments are added to a third-strike penalty of up to 12 matches.
From the outside, the AFL policy appears considerably softer than those of most other employers.
For whatever reason, ours is a society that treats its sports stars as role models, and with this tag comes an expectation that not only should the role model excel on the sports field, but that their professionalism will extend to the rest of their lives as well.
Email a friend